Skip to main content
Glama

Mailchimp

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Generate llms.txt

generate_llms_txt
Read-onlyIdempotent

Generate a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL so AI crawlers (ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity) can index the site cleanly. Fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits the standard llms.txt markdown format. Output is a single text blob ready to drop at site-root/llms.txt. Useful for: getting a client's site indexed by AI, drafting llms.txt for your own project, or auditing how an AI crawler would see a competitor.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesFull URL of the site to summarize, e.g. "https://example.com" or a specific landing page.
max_linksNoMaximum number of link entries to include (default 25, max 50).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds specific steps ('Fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, emits standard llms.txt markdown'), which enriches understanding. It lacks details on edge cases like timeouts or large pages, but the annotations cover safety well.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact (three sentences) and front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value—purpose, behavior, and use cases—without any fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, and use cases thoroughly. Annotations provide safety context. It is nearly complete for an agent to use correctly, though it could mention that the output is a single text blob (already stated) and perhaps a note on limitations (e.g., only works for public URLs).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (url and max_links), so the schema itself is informative. The description adds no additional meaning beyond summarizing the output format, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'generate' and the specific resource 'llms.txt file', making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also lists concrete use cases (getting a client's site indexed, drafting for own project, auditing competitors), which distinguishes it from any sibling tool even without explicit differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly provides usage scenarios ('Useful for: getting a client's site indexed...'), helping the agent decide when to invoke it. However, it does not mention when NOT to use it or suggest alternative tools, missing an opportunity for clearer guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Mailchimp toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools are near-duplicates: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, and discover_tools overlaps heavily with suggest_questions. The six Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, etc.) have fuzzy boundaries that will mislead an agent choosing among them.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names are snake_case, but patterns vary: verb_noun (list_subscriptions, validate_claim), adjective_noun (recent_alerts, recent_changes), bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), and domain-prefixed tools (ask_pipeworx, polymarket_*, mailchimp_*). No camelCase mixing, but the inconsistency across styles makes prediction of names harder.

Tool Count1/5

The server is named Mailchimp but only 5 of 36 tools are Mailchimp-related; the remaining 31 tools cover unrelated domains (Pipeworx data lookup, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions). This extreme mismatch means the count is wildly inappropriate for the apparent purpose.

Completeness1/5

For a Mailchimp server, the surface is severely incomplete: only read operations exist (list/get audiences, campaigns, members) with no create, update, delete, send, or automation tools. The Pipeworx tools are comparatively rich but their presence does not fix the fact that the Mailchimp domain itself is a dead end.

Resources